Terrorism

Defense

Filter By:

Type

Fellow

Research Team

Use comma-separated ID numbers for each author

Support the Hoover Institution

Join the Hoover Institution's community of supporters in advancing ideas defining a free society.

Support Hoover

A Changed World

by George P. Shultzvia Hoover Digest
Friday, April 30, 2004

“I cannot emphasize too strongly the danger we are facing. We are engaged in a long and bitter war. Yet this is a war we cannot—and will not—lose.” By Hoover fellow George P. Shultz.

this is an image

The Next Battleground in the Terror War

by Lisa D. Cookvia Hoover Digest
Friday, January 30, 2004

The failed states of Africa might only too easily become a breeding ground for terrorism. It is time for us to make certain that they don’t. By Hoover fellow Lisa D. Cook.

The Quagmire

by John B. Dunlopvia Hoover Digest
Friday, January 30, 2004

The war in Chechnya shows no sign of ending—and could grow still more brutal. By Hoover fellow John B. Dunlop.

this is an image

The Gravest Danger

by James Goodby, Sidney D. Drellvia Hoover Digest
Friday, January 30, 2004

Nuclear weapons could only too easily fall into the hands of rogue states and terrorists. Hoover fellow Sidney Drell and James Goodby explain how to prevent that from happening.

Ripples of Battle

by Victor Davis Hansonvia Hoover Digest
Friday, January 30, 2004

The continuing aftershocks of September 11. By Hoover fellow Victor Davis Hanson.

ROCK MY WORLDVIEW: How to Win the War on Terror

with Ken Jowitt, David Frumvia Uncommon Knowledge
Monday, January 19, 2004

Do the neoconservatives know how to win the war on terror? Much has been made of the influence within the Bush administration of neoconservatives—those who tend to take a hard line in the war on terror and who favored the war in Iraq. Recently two men close to the Bush administration, Richard Perle and David Frum, wrote a book laying out the neoconservative agenda for winning the war on terror and making America safe. Their agenda is bold and ambitious. Critics would say it is reckless and dangerous. Who's right?

Foreign Policy

PRC Security Relations with the United States: Why Things Are Going So Well

by Thomas Christensenvia China Leadership Monitor
Thursday, October 30, 2003

My first contribution to China Leadership Monitor was completed 10 days before the terrorist attacks in New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania. In that essay, I laid out reasons for optimism and pessimism about trends in People's Republic of China (PRC) security relations with Taiwan, the United States, and U.S. allies in the region. If we apply the template laid out in that essay to the contemporary setting, it is quite clear that U.S.-PRC relations are more stable and constructive than they have been at any other time since the period prior to the Tiananmen massacre of June 4, 1989. In fact, on issues such as North Korea, Washington and Beijing are closer to the long-term goal of a security partnership, articulated by the Clinton administration, than anyone could have expected when the Bush administration first assumed office. The early months of 2001 saw tough rhetoric on China out of Washington and a brief crisis in bilateral relations following the collision of a People's Liberation Army (PLA) jet fighter and a U.S. Navy EP-3 surveillance plane. Since fall 2001, however, relations have improved dramatically. There are still problems, of course. For example, there is still much improvement to be made on issues such as PRC weapons proliferation. That having been said, cooperation in the war on terrorism has been real, as I have outlined in previous editions of CLM. Beijing was also not very vocal in its opposition to the war in Iraq. Moreover, in the past several weeks Beijing has been extremely helpful to Washington in addressing the North Korean nuclear crisis and pressuring Pyongyang to accept a multilateral forum for negotiations. This cooperation has led to the assessment by Secretary of State Colin Powell that U.S.-PRC relations are at their most constructive "in decades." In this essay, I lay out the reasons for this basic turnaround in U.S.-PRC bilateral relations.

Spying in the Post–September 11 World

by Bruce Berkowitzvia Hoover Digest
Thursday, October 30, 2003

The attacks of September 11 made it clear that our intelligence organizations were too slow and inflexible to deal with the threat of international terrorism. Two years later, they still are. By Bruce Berkowitz.

Our Own Hundred Years’ War

by Clark S. Judgevia Hoover Digest
Thursday, October 30, 2003

The Second World War, the Cold War, and now the war on terrorism—all can be seen as part of a single, epochal struggle. Clark S. Judge on the new hundred years’ war.

PATRIOT GAMES: The Patriot Act in Review

with Edwin Meese III, Dorothy Ehrlichvia Uncommon Knowledge
Monday, October 27, 2003

In October 2001, in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, Congress passed, and President Bush signed, the USA Patriot Act. The law is intended to prevent future terrorist acts by enhancing various law enforcement tools. Critics argue that the Patriot Act is a dangerous infringement on American civil liberties. Now, more than two years after the passage of the Patriot Act, do we have any evidence that the critics are right? For that matter, do we even know whether the Patriot Act is working to deter terrorism? Should the Patriot Act be allowed to expire, or should its provisions become a permanent part of the war on terrorism?

Pages

Research Teams